Author Topic: Climate Emergency is already here. How much worse it gets is still up to us (?)  (Read 368563 times)

Offline lfcderek

  • Palooka basher Go ed Del Boy lid. Your right to point out wear I am wrong. Deffo more derek than lfc.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,353
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #160 on: September 3, 2012, 01:15:31 pm »
Bio,
For comparative purposes, the temps need zeroising to the start point of the observations. For satellite temps these started in 1979. So all temps (satellite and ground) need to agree at that point.

Source      Baseline period
GISTEMP      Jan 1951 - Dec 1980 (30 years)
HADCRUT3   Jan 1961 - Dec 1990 (30 years)
RSS              Jan 1979 - Dec 1998 (20 years)
UAH              Jan 1981 - Dec 2010 (30 years)

baseline adjustments

UAH = 0
RSS = -0.1
HADCRUT3 = -0.26
GISTEMP = -0.35

all deg C anomalies.

Having done that, the new observed temp graph needs zeoising to the start of the predictions.

Doing this ends up moving up the blue, yellow and orange lines which then makes the divergence apparent. The 'shape of the graph' keeps it original baseline.



When you do that, all 4 temp sets compare well with one another. Satellite being somewhat more sensitive than ground ones, as you'd expect.
"Don't let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right."
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."
"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn`t learn something from him."
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #161 on: September 3, 2012, 01:21:41 pm »
Bio,
For comparative purposes, the temps need zeroising to the start point of the observations. For satellite temps these started in 1979. So all temps (satellite and ground) need to agree at that point.

Source      Baseline period
GISTEMP      Jan 1951 - Dec 1980 (30 years)
HADCRUT3   Jan 1961 - Dec 1990 (30 years)
RSS              Jan 1979 - Dec 1998 (20 years)
UAH              Jan 1981 - Dec 2010 (30 years)

baseline adjustments

UAH = 0
RSS = -0.1
HADCRUT3 = -0.26
GISTEMP = -0.35

all deg C anomalies.

Having done that, the new observed temp graph needs zeoising to the start of the predictions.

Doing this ends up moving up the blue, yellow and orange lines which then makes the divergence apparent. The 'shape of the graph' keeps it original baseline.



When you do that, all 4 temp sets compare well with one another. Satellite being somewhat more sensitive than ground ones, as you'd expect.

I agree that they need a common baseline, otherwise you can't compare them. However, if all temperature records agree with one another, how does Spencer get such a discrepancy in his graph? Is it due to the baseline he chooses, which is very short? Or is it due to his adjustments? I've put a graph of what you get with Gistemp surface temperatures and you can see that Spencer's graph is considerably different. Something's not right.

Offline lfcderek

  • Palooka basher Go ed Del Boy lid. Your right to point out wear I am wrong. Deffo more derek than lfc.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,353
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #162 on: September 3, 2012, 05:05:01 pm »
Bio,
Just noticed that there were two Gistemps available. I've used DTS and it matches well. LOTI seems quite different, particularly post 1995.

Links on Solar I used are (I think)

Bond et al 2001
Pollack, H.N., and J.E. Smerdon 2004
Polissar et al 2006
Stuiver and Quay 1980
Stuiver et al 2004
MBH 98/99
Neff, U., et al 2001
M. Christl, A. Mangini, S. Holzkämper, C. Spötl 2004
Mangini, A, C. Spotl, P.Verdes 2005

Veizer, J., Y. Godderis and L.M. Franc 2000
Usoskin et al 2005
"Don't let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right."
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."
"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn`t learn something from him."
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

Offline lfcderek

  • Palooka basher Go ed Del Boy lid. Your right to point out wear I am wrong. Deffo more derek than lfc.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,353
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #163 on: September 3, 2012, 05:59:12 pm »
How, without a mechanism, can you claim that GCRs have a major impact on global temperatures?



You've heard of 'black box theories', right. If you don't know what the mechanism is, you put it inside a black box and only consider the inputs and outputs. Considering those will often lead research as to the mechanism - see the whole history of science.





Bio, seriously, no sane person looking at that graph would deny a strong causal correlation.





With no, repeat no, anthropogenics to help them along, we've matching swings of more than 1 deg C. To the bottom of the Little Ice Age it's 2 deg C.

By the lights of the IPCC this is of the order of 3-5 W/m2 (without feedbacks  ;D ). Who knows? The IPCC should be finding out by putting it into a model and tuning it to achieve a best fit – sound familiar?

To pretend that you can model the climate system and deliberately leave out a known major forcing is perverse and unscientific.

Quote
You may claim there's a correlation, but that's as far as it goes.

The research – calculated correlation coefficients – from real empirical data published in your favourite 'peer reviewed literature' is incontrovertible.


Bond et al 2010            r=0.56
Neff, U., et al 2001       r=0.6
Usoskin et al 2005        r=0.75
Mangini et al 2005        r=0.6

I wonder what the r is for the IPCC models 2007 - date is?




   

"Don't let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right."
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."
"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn`t learn something from him."
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #164 on: September 3, 2012, 06:42:41 pm »
You've heard of 'black box theories', right. If you don't know what the mechanism is, you put it inside a black box and only consider the inputs and outputs. Considering those will often lead research as to the mechanism - see the whole history of science.


Bio, seriously, no sane person looking at that graph would deny a strong causal correlation.

With no, repeat no, anthropogenics to help them along, we've matching swings of more than 1 deg C. To the bottom of the Little Ice Age it's 2 deg C.

By the lights of the IPCC this is of the order of 3-5 W/m2 (without feedbacks  ;D ). Who knows? The IPCC should be finding out by putting it into a model and tuning it to achieve a best fit – sound familiar?

To pretend that you can model the climate system and deliberately leave out a known major forcing is perverse and unscientific.

The research – calculated correlation coefficients – from real empirical data published in your favourite 'peer reviewed literature' is incontrovertible.


Bond et al 2010            r=0.56
Neff, U., et al 2001       r=0.6
Usoskin et al 2005        r=0.75
Mangini et al 2005        r=0.6

I wonder what the r is for the IPCC models 2007 - date is?


It's going to take me a while to get the papers and read through them. However, it's also clear that it is unlikely that GCRs  play a major role in global temperatures - GCRs play a minimal role in cloud formation, there's been no trend in GCRs in the past 50 years yet global temperatures have risen and the recent spike in GCRs was not matched by a drop in temperatures. We have direct observations of GCRs and temperatures, and the correlation simply isn't there. And sorry, correlation is not causation - this is one of the first things you learn in statistics. Provide a mechanism and provide calculations, then we'll have something to go on.

By the way, on top of the inconsistencies I've already mentioned, this graph, from this article by Muscheler et al. (2005) is pretty telling:



That's why we need more than a correlation on graphs.

I've also been working on the observations vs Hansen's projections and I really question the use of the 1979-1983 baseline by Spencer as well as the adjustments he applied to lower troposphere temperatures.

This is Spencer's original graph (1979-1983 baseline):



This is the graph based on a 1979-1998 baseline:



And this is the graph based on a 1981-2010 baseline:



Methinks there are serious question marks over the choice of datasets and/or adjustments, and the baseline chosen by Spencer.

Offline lfcderek

  • Palooka basher Go ed Del Boy lid. Your right to point out wear I am wrong. Deffo more derek than lfc.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,353
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #165 on: September 3, 2012, 07:56:30 pm »



Bio, you've lost me. Your Scenario A (modest rate rises continue) now appears to track below that of Scenario B ( CO2 held at 88 levels).
I'm off out, will reply to GCRs anon.
"Don't let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right."
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."
"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn`t learn something from him."
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #166 on: September 3, 2012, 08:17:53 pm »


Bond et al 2010            r=0.56
Neff, U., et al 2001       r=0.6
Usoskin et al 2005        r=0.75
Mangini et al 2005        r=0.6


Think it's worth pointing out that, unless I've had a look at the wrong article, Neff et al. are looking at the link between solar variability and the monsoon in Oman, that Usoskin et al. ignores the past 30 years of data as it GCRs don't correlate with temperatures during this period, Mangini et al show a correlation between solar variability and temperatures in the Central Alps, and Bond et al. looked at the correlation between GCRs and drift ice. So I don't think the papers show what you're claiming.

This whole discussion started because you claimed that GCRs could explain past shifts in temperatures better than feedbacks, but you have so far failed to provide a mechanism that could explain such shifts, let alone provide evidence that GCRs did actually cause the shifts.

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #167 on: September 3, 2012, 08:29:03 pm »
Bio, you've lost me. Your Scenario A (modest rate rises continue) now appears to track below that of Scenario B ( CO2 held at 88 levels).
I'm off out, will reply to GCRs anon.

That's what happens when you change the baselines. If you look at Hansen's original projections and Spencer's graph, you'll see that Spencer's way of doing things changes the way the scenarios track each other when compared to the original.

Here's the original:



Here's Spencer's graph:


Offline Carlos: Very Kickable

  • Pompous Twat. Scourge of Pinko Liberalism. Attitude to Cyan Conservatism is unclear. Lives in a Monochrome world and is baffled by colours.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,802
  • As Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus would say...
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #168 on: September 5, 2012, 03:26:16 pm »
I have to give Devon Red and Bioluminescence some credit.

Isn't it really interesting that RojoLeon moans about not arguing the opposing viewpoint but as soon as we do he runs off to continue his antisocial cut-and-pasting in another thread?

I guess it's easier to use CNTRL-C/CNTRL-V than to think about what you are posting.
I know you struggle with reading comprehension Carlitos, but do try to pay attention

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #169 on: September 5, 2012, 04:18:28 pm »
 :)

I asked you some questions CQ. If you don't want to answer them, that's fine. I see, once again you are snarking rather than acting in good faith and discussing.

Maybe that is your default position all along.

Troll.  :wave

Offline Carlos: Very Kickable

  • Pompous Twat. Scourge of Pinko Liberalism. Attitude to Cyan Conservatism is unclear. Lives in a Monochrome world and is baffled by colours.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,802
  • As Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus would say...
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #170 on: September 5, 2012, 06:09:48 pm »
If you scroll up you'll see that I did expand on the answers you commented on - you never replied but got on with your cut-and-pasting in another thread.

:wave

Hey look I can use CNTRL-C/ CNTRL V too!


I know you struggle with reading comprehension Carlitos, but do try to pay attention

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #171 on: September 5, 2012, 09:37:45 pm »
reply #133. See that and get back to me.

Some vague waffle about this and that, punctuated with insults and snarks makes me think you are a bad faith actor. Speak up for yourself, if you're not just trolling.

Offline Carlos: Very Kickable

  • Pompous Twat. Scourge of Pinko Liberalism. Attitude to Cyan Conservatism is unclear. Lives in a Monochrome world and is baffled by colours.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,802
  • As Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus would say...
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #172 on: September 6, 2012, 01:46:47 am »
reply #133. See that and get back to me.

Some vague waffle about this and that, punctuated with insults and snarks makes me think you are a bad faith actor. Speak up for yourself, if you're not just trolling.

For a second you had me worried that I had missed your rebuttal to the points you asked me to expand on. After checking I realised I hadn't and that you had skipped the subject entirely focussing instead on asking what I had majored in.

And that's the whole problem - summed up in your final statement "convince me" - you missed the point entirely - and not by a small margin. As I explained in the post you didn't bother (or more likely couldn't) reply to - I don't have to convince you. I'm not asking you for anything - you want people to change their ways, the burden of proof is on you not me. An illiterate street urchin could understand that - but then you would no doubt dismiss that concept as they hadn't "majored" in a subject you approve of.

As for trolling, it seems to me a more apt description for someone who regurgitates lengthy articles with the clipboard function and then doesn't engage in any debate about them. Maybe that's difficult to do when you don't have any original world views. And if that's the case how can you possibly call yourself educated - whatever piece of paper you have that claims otherwise?
I know you struggle with reading comprehension Carlitos, but do try to pay attention

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #173 on: September 6, 2012, 03:10:18 am »
I post articles that are relevant for discussion. If you, or anyone else wants to discuss or ignore, that is up to you/them. I find supporting a position with argument, discourse and alternative sources aids the process and perhaps shows ideas that were not considered otherwise. I don't cherry pick soundbites and pass them off as my own - when i have something to say, I am very happy to do so in reply to people acting in good faith.

I find people who engage in pejorative discourse and/or snark and snipe without provocation are generally trolls - bad faith actors - overcompensating for the lack of something meaningful in their gestalt reality.

Your opening post is:

It's all bollocks. No-one knows what is going to happen and even if they did no-one could agree on what to do about it anyway.

Not quite the open and engaged posting of someone who wanted a fair discussion. Seems a bit closed minded, but there you go.

You then go on:

Climate is a dynamic highly unstable system which is currently way beyond any modelling capabilities. Modelling "with increasing accuracy" is worthless as the model could be 90% right and give you a new ice age rather than a global desert. Weather (which is different) is another such system - or perhaps you'd like to tell me what the weather will be like 8 weeks from today?

What have you to say to back any of that up? Are you a meteorologist? Are you a climate sicentist? Do you have any sources, links or relevant experience to make your unsupported and broad dismissal of scientific climate modeling?

Apart form your bizarre obsession with my ability to copy and paste, you didn't say anything else there of substance.

Well surely it should be obvious that the more political and economic upheaval you're going to cause the more certain you need to be of the outcome?

Otherwise you're just shuffling the pack without any idea of whether you will end up with a better hand.

For example, more environmental laws in this country = more economic burden for our companies. More economic burden for our companies = decreased competititiveness. Decreased competitiveness = more business gets pushed across to India and China who seriously don't give a fuck. Chance of vibrant western economy finding a technological solution to deal with climate change recedes.

Hence - as i explained: it's all bollocks. Even if you knew what was going to happen (and you don't) no-one would be able to agree on what to do about it anyway.

Don't you get it? Asking for papers telling you the exact percentage of the sun's contribution to climate change is worthless. Even if it's 0.000001% that might be enough to tip the whole system wildly from one extreme to another so why are you wasting your time chasing it? We will NEVER know things to that degree of detail and even if we did we wil never have a predictive model we could plug the information into anyway.

Again here, when challenged to support your view, you make vague and unsupported waffle around the houses: The old, 'I explained it in the last post', explanation (Except you didn't): Some unsupported waffle about how climate science is bad for the economy: Some more 'science is worthless and a waste of time', prattle.

Its funny because you're all so obsessed with poring over graphs and charts predicting how the world works but its clear none of you actually have the first clue  :(

Pejorative and unnecessary. Acting in bad faith.

And as usual the environmentalist brigade (the emphasis being on the mental) expect everyone to go along with them on the strength of the “because I say it is” argument.
Well the burden of proof is on you not me and that burden increases the more you sacrifices you expect everyone to make.
If you are saying we are all going to hell in a handcart – that’s fine – we can add you to the list of loons on RAWK, no harm done.
If you’re saying everyone has to donate five pounds to prevent the end of the world as you’ve calculated the date of rapture – well fair enough – I might post you a cheque.
But if you’re talking about making changes that will substantially affect jobs, growth, industry, technology and prosperity you are going to have to produce some convincing proof that the changes you want are really necessary – and you have to admit that is the only fair and, in fact, moral thing to do.
The businesses that pay for “their” negative externalities are the same ones that transport food to your door and clothe you and provide the computer that you spend most of the day clacking on.
They will be the first to adopt the policies to safeguard their future if there is a convincing argument for it. Your problem is that there ISN’T a convincing argument. At all. You can’t tell me what the weather is going to be like three weeks from now yet you want to restrict the economy based on your predictions about what is going to happen 20 years from now.
You call it “fake scepticism” when in fact you are peddling “fake environmentalism”. It’s the same lefty, anti-corporate, tree hugging sandal toting agenda dressed up with some inadequate science. There is an overwhelming amount of proof for the theory of evolution by natural selection but your brand of science is more akin to creationism since you selectively use and distort facts to mask the major limitations of the whole philosophy.

But I was being polite with you.
I could have simply asked you – according to your modelling, in what year will the Western World invent a new safe, cheap source of power that will solve the world’s energy needs?

Pejorative and unnecessary again - equating environmentalism with mental illness? It's all a big leftie conspiracy, dressed up in inadequate science?

So what is your adequate scientific background? What and where did you learn that makes you able to dismiss it all without backing it up. Just once.

Ah but you haven't read paragraph 6.5.1.1 (subsection 7.2) where he specifically calls for even MORE models that arent fit for purpose - hopefully funded by a big shiny new grant so he can keep the wolf from the door.
   

Scientists keeping wolves from the door - in a big leftie conspiracy to crash the global economy.  :lmao  Have you been watching too much Alex Jones again.

It's really simple. If you have convincing evidence, people will be convinced.
   

Do it. Convince me.

Yep but if a gypsy was to turn up at your door and wave some crystals over your head before informing you that you had to stop drinking or you would die of liver failure would you? Im sure she could produce plenty of evidence about other people who had drunk too much and died following her prediction but you wouldnt do it because you wouldnt trust her enough to do it.

If you can model what is going to happen with the weather exactly a month from now I might have some confidence in your model. If you could tell me a year from you could have enough evidence to convince industry round the world to change.

But you can't because the science is nowhere near close to doing that. You know that. I know that. so putting more burdens on industry is directly harmful.

But imagine you COULD predict to the nth degree what what happen - you would then have to deciede what to do about it. In simple terms if you make everyone more energy efficient you make it cheaper to live. That encourages population growth.

BUt really none of that matters. Its just dressing up the lefty agenda in another guise to push it down people's throats. You mock people for questiooing the scientists yet feel free to dictate how poepl should run their businesses and what effect green taxes will have on them.

I suppose its a questin of balance - feel free to give up what you want but before you can expect other people to do the same you need a convincing argument.

Currently you're nowhere near.

Vague waffle, talking around the houses. No support or explanation for your position - leftie conspiracy against those fundamentally honest and trustworthy oil/coal barons.

Dismiss science as worthless and then say you're not convinced by their science - are you a 14th century catholic priest?

In my summation they seem of average intelligence, clearly well read but poorly educated. But I suspect I have a much broader definition of the term educated.

I am quite quite sure they have much worse things to say about me.  :wave

Pejorative and with a unhealthy dose of superiority complex. What is your great and superior education and learning background?

I use "educated" in the sense of your world view. And that's my point you're not evaluating all the evidence - you have a deep focus in a narrow field (in my view). As I said it's just my view but I don't consider someone to be truly educatede unless they have some wisdom too. I don't see much evidence of that. Not trying to offend - just my view.

The old, 'I'm educated and wise in ways you can only imagine', argument.

Convince me you are - convince me you are on the level and are in fact acting in good faith and not just trolling with nothing to back yourself up.

Yes weather and climate are comparable but not the same.

OK then take the economy - much easier to model than any of the two examples above. Can any of the "world's foremost experts" predict what level the FTSE will close at this time next year? No.

Why?

Because it currently can't be modelled.

But with climate long term predictions could be COMPLETELY off  - the modelling is certainly not strong enough on which to base major changes in the economy.

But as I said your evidence is certainly strong enough to convince you so please dont let me stop you from wearing your hemp shirt and burying your poo. Just dont expect anyone else to follow until theres something more convincing.

You may well be right and and be a prophetic guru ahead of everybody else but somehow I doubt it....

The old, 'I can deny science because of my unimpeachable superiority and credentials you can't possibly understand', argument.


But as I said your evidence is certainly strong enough to convince you so please dont let me stop you from wearing your hemp shirt and burying your poo. Just dont expect anyone else to follow until theres something more convincing.

You may well be right and and be a prophetic guru ahead of everybody else but somehow I doubt it....

Again with the pejorative snarks. You seem to require a lot of ego compensating.

I have to give Devon Red and Bioluminescence some credit.

Isn't it really interesting that RojoLeon moans about not arguing the opposing viewpoint but as soon as we do he runs off to continue his antisocial cut-and-pasting in another thread?

I guess it's easier to use CNTRL-C/CNTRL-V than to think about what you are posting.

Rinse and repeat more stalkerish comments about copy and paste while backhanded compliments to posters you had described previously as being mentally ill/deficient, lacking in education and being leftie anti capitalist conspirators. 


So why are your arguments convincing: You feel the need to punctuate them with insults, and superiority complex waffle, while yourself saying not one thing of substance. You provide nothing yet expect to be treated with respect you yourself don't give to others who are acting in good faith by ignoring your jibes when responding.

To me, that is the actions of someone who is trolling - acting in bad faith. Pretending to be on the level while disrupting and snarking.

For a second you had me worried that I had missed your rebuttal to the points you asked me to expand on. After checking I realised I hadn't and that you had skipped the subject entirely focussing instead on asking what I had majored in.

And that's the whole problem - summed up in your final statement "convince me" - you missed the point entirely - and not by a small margin. As I explained in the post you didn't bother (or more likely couldn't) reply to - I don't have to convince you. I'm not asking you for anything - you want people to change their ways, the burden of proof is on you not me. An illiterate street urchin could understand that - but then you would no doubt dismiss that concept as they hadn't "majored" in a subject you approve of.

As for trolling, it seems to me a more apt description for someone who regurgitates lengthy articles with the clipboard function and then doesn't engage in any debate about them. Maybe that's difficult to do when you don't have any original world views. And if that's the case how can you possibly call yourself educated - whatever piece of paper you have that claims otherwise?

I don't care what you did or didn't do at school to be honest. I thought your putting it out there might better support your general air of cocky bravado. There is no point that I have missed - this is a discussion thread - there is no 'point', hence 'discuss'. Put your views across and defend them without recourse to insults.

I haven't seen a single post of yours here that shows the actions of a person in good faith. You have not treated anyone with respect.

You say you made a post that explained your views but clearly you didn't. At least, what you did post was dealt with conclusively by the replies of Biolu and Devonred (who you rightly credit, finally).

You state that the burden of proof lies with climate scientists. By why no burden of proof for you. You say 'it's bollocks': Why, how and what is the reality if so.

Why do you hold the views you do? What is the basis for you dismissal of science? What evidence have you for saying it's all a big leftie conspiracy to crash the economy?

It's really simple. If you have convincing evidence, people will be convinced.
   

The only truth you have spoken - well then?

Offline Carlos: Very Kickable

  • Pompous Twat. Scourge of Pinko Liberalism. Attitude to Cyan Conservatism is unclear. Lives in a Monochrome world and is baffled by colours.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,802
  • As Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus would say...
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #174 on: September 6, 2012, 05:58:58 am »
The only troll around here is you.

I’m glad you finally got around to (pretending to) address my points after I called you out for cutting and pasting your way through another thread (NB Capitalism VS the Climate – no agenda there then..)

You prove you’re a troll as you don’t address a SINGLE point I have made – not one.

You dismiss them as “waffle” and “going round the houses”. Apparently I even have to produce a University Master’s Certificate to prove that modelling climate is difficult – any sane, NON-trolling person on either side of the debate would acknowledge that fact.

Laughably, you then make great play about how I’ve started off my postings being “closed minded” and not encouraging a “fair discussion” when the very TITLE of the thread as Andy@Allerton so helpfully pointed out is, in your overused phrase, pejorative (again no agenda there right?)

Even more hilariously you then invite me twice to convince you  (-as though anybody could!) when I have already pointed out in the earlier post it’s not my burden of proof – it’s yours  - I’m not the one asking people to make sacrifices for junk science. Doubtless you were too busy slavering at the prospect of doing all that cutting and pasting with my posts to spend half a second actually reading them.

What does your OCD habit of cutting and pasting have to do with me being a stalker?

You spend your whole response saying the same three things over and over again, engaging in ad hominem attacks, hypocritically accusing me of the same thing. And as for a superiority complex…why should anybody on this or any other forum feel the need to justify anything to you? See above for the burden of proof that I mentioned.

After your entreaty to provide details about my educational background you then say you don’t care about it anyway – so who is acting in bad faith? Who is trolling?

I’ve read your sentence about making points in a discussion thread three times in increasing incredulity. It still doesn’t make sense to me. 

I do realize that none of this will be making a shred of difference so – in language you will understand:

http://usabig.com/iindv/articles_stand/pee/enviro_trick.php

The Environmentalists Trick
Except for the, "true believers," and other useful idiots, environmentalists promote their programs entirely by means of subterfuge, deceit, and manipulation. They never reveal their true purposes or ultimate goals, which have nothing to do with saving little animals or the future welfare of mankind. They will resort to anything to push their program: when they are unable to put over global cooling, they simply switch to the equally implausible global warming, for example. Perhaps the greatest deception of all, however, is a gimmick that has been able to fool almost everyone.
No Environmentalism Debate
The greens have made almost all their progress by means of a wonderful tactic or trick. The trick was made possible by the spread of post-modern relativism in every field, from literature to science—the trick was to remove environmentalism entirely from the realm of principles.
For example, environmentalism claims to be a science, or at least scientific. To put that lie over, they have foisted the environmental agenda in amongst legitimate scientific subjects in almost every university in the world and couch all their endless screeds in pseudo-scientific jargon. No one notices that their methods are the very opposite of science.
Issues of fact and science are not resolved by means of debate, consensus, or propaganda (e.g. movies), but those are the methods of the environmentalists, and no one calls them on it. In fact, the very opposite happens. When the environmentalists claim there is a consensus on global warming in the scientific community, legitimate scientists look at global warming and conclude that real scientific research not only does not support any aspect of the global warming hustle, but contradicts it at every point.
Though reality and real science support scientists, they fall for the environmentalist methods and get up various petitions to prove it is they who have the consensus. When a clear thinking journalist sees that global warming is an alarmist hoax, what does he do? He makes a movie repudiating the environmentalists arguments. Though these true scientist and honest journalists have all the facts on their side, and they, not the environmental alarmist, hold the moral high ground, instead of simply repudiating the entire global warming scam for what it is, they apologetically engage in the, "environmentalism debate."
Though environmentalists make outrageous public statements that, "there is no more debate," they are in fact delighted with the concept of an environmentalism debate, because it lends their lies some legitimacy. The fact that their lies are being recognized and considered worthy of debate by legitimate scientists and the better intellectuals gives their phony clap-trap credibility. There is nothing legitimate in any aspect of environmentalism, and the only correct "recognition" of environmentalists is total contempt.
Here are three principles (there are many more) that demonstrate environmentalism as worthy of nothing but total dismissal (or prosecution):
1. Environmentalism is collectivism.
2. No one can predict the future.
3. Environmentalism is predictable.
Environmentalism is Collectivism
In their efforts to put over their agenda, environmentalists have tried to convince the world that it is one of the sciences. It is not a science and there is not a single scientific basis for any of it. It is, and always has been, a purely social political movement. If you have not already ready the fascinating history of environmentalism I referred to in the article "Green Evil—A Hate Speech" in this series, please do so for you own enlightenment and enjoyment.
The method by which environmentalism puts over the lie that environmentalism is based on science is by mixing it in with legitimate science, implying that those sciences are themselves environmentalism (or ecology), or at lest part of environmentalism. To understand what environmentalism is, it is necessary to understand what it is not.
The legitimate studies of geology, soil chemistry, the biological relationships between various kinds of flora and fauna, weather, climate, water systems, even the relationships between cities and their surroundings are not environmentalism. All of these provide individuals with knowledge they need to make right decisions in business, farming, forestry, mining, manufacturing, building, and any of the other things about which human beings must make choices to live successfully and improve the quality of their lives.
A farmer who remains ignorant of soil chemistry, for example, or does not understand the causes of erosion or the depletion of soil nutrients, is not going to be successful, or, at least as successful as the farmer who learns about these things and uses them to guide his farming practices. The manufacturer chosing to produce a product he expects to sell in his community (wether that community is local or encompasses an entire country) is not going to have customers if his manufacturing processes are destroying the property or harming the well being of those same customer.
Environmentalism is not even what most are led to believe it is—a serious concern for the environment and for preserving it for its own sake—for the beauty and wonder of it and all the creatures and plants living in it. Whether such individuals devote their lives to a study of nature in that sense, or simply appreciate it, as much of it as they can, they are not necessarily environmentalists.
What distinguishes environmentalism from true science or even a love of the natural world is a single unquestioned assertion, that the environment, that is, the world and all its life, in some sense belongs to and is the responsibility of some collective we, and that we have the ability to determine exactly what the environment ought to be and therefore requires the power to determine government policy at every level to force their views on others—preferably all others.
Here is an example, from an introductory seminar for freshmen in the Department of Geological and Environmental Studies at Stanford University.
The seminar is entitle, "Environmental Problems." Topics in the seminar include, "groundwater contamination from point (e.g., Love Canal) and nonpoint (agricultural) sources, cumulative watershed effects related to timber and mining practices, acid rain, subsurface disposal of nuclear waste, the Alaska pipeline, slope stability (e.g., Devils' Slide), oil tanker spills (e.g., Exxon Valdez), etc. These are supposedly examples of, "environmental problems." The reason why students of geology need to know about these "problem" is explained in the first part of the seminar's description:
The seminar, it says, is, "For students interested in understanding the various components of multidisciplinary environmental problems and in identifying ethical questions that are often associated with decision making in the regulatory arena." [Emphasis mine.]
[Note: Some course descriptions may have changed.]
There is no doubt some science in this seminar, such as the dynamics of groundwater flow and the dissemination of materials into the groundwater from various sources, the effect of various lumbering and mining practices on erosion, different methods of disposing of Atomic waste, and the dynamics of oil tankers, for example. Everything else, however, is environmentalism, that is, politics.
It begins with an agenda and a particular ideology that calls anything contrary to that agenda a "problem." Anything contrary to the environmentalist's view of what the environment ought to be and how it ought to be used (or protected) is bad. For example, the Alaska pipeline is a, "problem," because ...it makes people sick? NO! ...because it damages people's homes or property? NO! ...because it does anything at all bad to people? NO! The Alaska pipeline is a problem because it might adversely affect caribou herds and the fur trapping business. [Yes, these "greens" were worried about the fur trade, but only because it is a "native" (read primitive) industry.] It doesn't really matter, but the caribou herds are flourishing and there was no damage to the fur trade, which is just another example of the inability of environmentalists, or anyone else, to predict the future. What does matter is that anyone's particular concerns about anything that is not theirs can be used to set government policy about what other people can or cannot do.
The caribou do not belong to these meddling environmental bureaucrats, and neither does any other part of the environment. They, or you, or I, might not like the affect on some aspect of this world resulting from what some people do with their own property, but unless what they do directly affects our own property or persons, no matter how much we dislike it, no one has a right to force anyone to do or not do anything with their own property.
Remember this seminar is meant to introduce students to "ethical questions that are often associated with decision making in the regulatory arena." In a society of free individuals, the only "regulating" the government may rightly and Constitutionally engage in, is preventing any individual or any group of individuals from initiating force or the threat of it against other individuals' persons or property, and the only kind of property there is, is private property. Any other kind of regulation is unethical (and unConstitutional, for all that's worth).
Behind every aspect of environmentalism is the idea that the environment belongs to the collective, "everyone," the "community," the "society," or "the people of the whole world." Without this unstated collective assumption, there could be no environmental movement.
The correct answer to every environmentalist argument is: "SHUT UP! IT'S NOT YOUR PROPERTY!"
No One Can Predict the Future
I pointed out in my previous article, Environmental Hegemony, the Greens at Rutgers university actually claim to be able to, "predict the future," as part of their, "university-wide endeavor." Al Gore, the high priest of global warming has made this wild prediction: "... there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months will be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years," If you could believe anything these environmentalists claim, according to them 1,439,916 have so far swallowed this lie and have "signed up" to "solve" the non-existent "environmental crisis."
I have previously pointed out that this is, "The Age of Gullibility," but not even that can explain how so many have been taken in by this outright blatant scam. The, "ability to predict the future," has been the claim of every con-artist, witch doctor, fraudulent mystic, and guru in history. Their appeal is to the ignorant and credulous, and continues to this day as witnessed by the success of astrologers, tarot readers, tea-leave interpreters and other assorted fortune tellers.
Environmentalists, however, belong to a special class of "prophets"—the "doomsday" cultists who predict the end of the world as we know it. The difference between environmentalists and most other "end of the world" prophets is that environmentalist's claim to know the future without mystic revelation, but by means of "science." Instead of gaining their special "insights" through meditation or examining the entrails of chickens, their "knowledge" of the future comes from examining the spewings of some arcane computer programs that are not able to predict anything.
The creators of those programs "acknowledge that they are unable to predict future climate," and "computer climate models are unable to even simulate major features of past climate ...." "The climate simulations upon which predictions are based yield unreliable results ... [even for] the last few decades." Yet environmentalists assure us, and the a gullible world accepts, that they can predict the future of climate change with certain warnings of the end of everything within 10 years, on the basis of these programs which have no more power to predict the future than the lines on the palms of their hands.
Here is a principle: No one can predict the future. When anyone, a politician, religious leader, or environmentalist claims to be able to predict the future, it is not necessary to read their books, consider their arguments, or examine their science because no matter what they claim to base their predictions on, they are either deluded or (most likely) lying.
No one can predict what the environment will do, what animals will survive or not, what the consequences of human activity (which "nature" mostly ignores) will be, or what next week's weather or next year's climate will be. The idea that anyone can predict what the climate will be in 5 years, much less 10 or 50 years, is totally absurd. In the entire history of the world, not one of these kinds of predictions has ever been correct, or ever will be.
Ironic Environmentalism
There are no paradoxes in this world, but there is plenty of irony! That irony shows up whenever there is a conflict between policies, or ideologies, or popular movements and reality. Since everything about environmentalism flies in the face of every truth of philosophy and science, the whole of it is shot through with ironic contradictions.
One of the most ironic aspects of environmentalism is its history of over-population hysteria.
Since Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834) predicted, "the human population would grow to a point so as to outstrip the world's resources needed to support it," environmentalists have been predicting the end of the world because we would all (or most of us) starve to death, or die in some other environmental catastrophe.
In 1864,George Perkins Marsh published his famous Man and Nature: Or, Physical Geography as Modified by Human Action described by the reviewer as a, "litany of environmental destruction." This particular environmental propaganda was republished in 2003.
The inside cover of the book jacket of Fairfield Osborne's 1948 book Our Plundered Planet reads, "This book ... contains unmistakable evidence that a continued defiance of nature threatens even the survival of mankind." Osborne published a second similar gloom and doom book, The Limits of the Earth in 1953.
Perhaps the most famous environmental doomsday prophet is Paul Ehrlich. His 1968 The Population Bomb repeated many of the wild predictions made in an earlier "article that appeared in New Scientist in December 1967. In that article, Ehrlich predicted that the world would experience famines sometime between 1970 and 1985 due to population growth outstripping resources. Ehrlich wrote that "the battle to feed all of humanity is over ... In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now." Ehrlich also stated, "India couldn't possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980," and "I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks that India will be self-sufficient in food by 1971." None of these predictions were correct, of course. But that doesn't stop a good environmentalist propagandist. Ehrlich continues to make wild baseless predictions and is still believed by the gullible.
Eugenics and Environmentalism
Environmentalism's perennial panic about overpopulation has made population control one of its central concerns from its beginnings over 300 years ago. In all of its variations, population control means eugenics which has always been part and parcel of environmentalism and remains part of it today.
This is a description of environmental views of those who first practiced eugenics on a wide scale:
"It decried the accelerating extinction of species, disturbance of global ecosystemic balance, deforestation, destruction of aboriginal peoples and of wild habitats, urban sprawl, and the increasing alienation of people from nature. In emphatic terms it disparaged ... capitalism, economic utilitarianism, hyperconsumption and the ideology of 'progress.' It even condemned the environmental destructiveness of rampant tourism and the slaughter of whales, and displayed a clear recognition of the planet as an ecological totality."
Sound familiar? You may be surprised to learn the "it" being described here is the book Man and Earth published in Germany in 1913 by the "venomous antisemite," (sic) Ludwig Klages. It was in Germany that environmentalism in all its present day variations began, including eugenics as a "practical" means of implementing the environmental policy of population control. The Nazis were radical environmentalists and there is not a single aspect of the modern day environmentalist movement, including its eugenics, which did not begin with them. [please read the linked article.]
The Irony
Environmentalism's concern with overpopulation is always couched in language that sounds like concern for humanity, such as avoiding famine or disease or other supposed impending disasters. Their solution called population control is really some form of eugenics to reduce the world's population. The irony is, if there were widespread famine, disease, or other life-threatening disasters, the population would be reduced. That very irony reveals the true nature of environmentalism, which has nothing to do with saving either the environment or mankind, but a lust for worldwide political power.
—Reginald Firehammer

I know you struggle with reading comprehension Carlitos, but do try to pay attention

Offline pantbash

  • is single and likely to remain that way
  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 922
  • A Bacchanalian - Still persecuted since BC
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #175 on: September 6, 2012, 07:17:21 am »
What an utterly retarded article.
Atheism (from Greek, "athos" meaning 'hell', "eios" meaning 'demon' or 'Satan', and "ismos" meaning Liberal, literally "Satan's Liberal Helldemon")

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #176 on: September 6, 2012, 07:54:10 am »

 :)

You are very angry CQ - why are you so angry, CQ?

You write so very much while saying so little - an artform in itself, I suppose.

I don't know what my copying and pasting has to do with you being a stalker, but I am delighted you have learned this basic piece of human-computer interaction from me. I exude pride.

Reginald Firehammer, eh? He seems like a trustworthy and reliable chap. An Ayn Rand acolyte who is virulently homophobic and demonstrably mentally retarded. Nice to have you introduce me to him. Nice to know you are a fan of his work. Speaks volumes about you. I note your defense of Gorgeous George in another thread (how nice of you to notice me elsewhere too :-* ). You seem a bit confused in general.  :(

CQ, in the interests of others here on this discussion board (in case you forgot you are not in the zoo anymore), I am going to bow gracefully out from this current discussion and leave it for others to engage in as they chose.

I however, would respectfully ask that you don't engage me personally again - I think we are done, don't you?

What an utterly retarded article.

Seems quite apt given who brought it to our attention.

Offline lfcderek

  • Palooka basher Go ed Del Boy lid. Your right to point out wear I am wrong. Deffo more derek than lfc.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,353
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #177 on: September 8, 2012, 04:52:37 pm »
Finally managed to back to this.


... it's also clear that it is unlikely that GCRs  play a major role in global temperatures - GCRs play a minimal role in cloud formation, there's been no trend in GCRs in the past 50 years yet global temperatures have risen and the recent spike in GCRs was not matched by a drop in temperatures.



This is desperation stuff Bio - to keep your head in the sand.

If I put a saucepan of water on the stove and turn the gas on (half way) it won't warm the water unless I keep turning it up?? If I leave it on at the same level the heating effect mysteriously disappears?!

A trend is not necessary – a sufficient level of heating is!

Bio, the temperature will continue to rise until the input level of energy equilibrates with the heat sinks ability to dissipate it. Bog standard thermodynamics.

Time lags are also part and parcel of climate.

There are even everyday examples – temperature at 3 pm is higher than at noon even though the direct irradiance has been going down for three hours! . Temperatures are higher in August despite the fact that irradiance has been going down since June 21st.

Solar cycle 22 (ending in 1986)  was one of the most intense on record (part of the 20th century “grand maximum” that was the most active sun of the last 11 thousand years. By almost every measure it was more intense than solar cycle 21. Adding on a 'Time to Equilibrium' of 10+ years (the sainted Gavin's estimate) brings us nicely to the late nineties.

Cycle 23 was the first to herald the big downturn in the Sun's activity and global temperatures have been flat since.





If cycle 24 runs as predicted then cooling from 2015/2016 should start to kick in – and bring with it the death of the 'CO2 Global Warming Hysteria'.






As a matter of interest, how do you (and the IPCC) go about explaining temperatures going up and down like a yo-yo when there are no anthropic green house gases to provide a forcing? You'll notice that GCRs can provide an answer and that CO2 (shown on this graph) can't.


 



« Last Edit: September 8, 2012, 05:51:57 pm by lfcderek »
"Don't let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right."
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."
"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn`t learn something from him."
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

Offline lfcderek

  • Palooka basher Go ed Del Boy lid. Your right to point out wear I am wrong. Deffo more derek than lfc.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,353
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #178 on: September 8, 2012, 05:44:43 pm »

Quote
By the way, on top of the inconsistencies I've already mentioned, this graph, from this article by Muscheler et al. (2005) is pretty telling:





That paper was concerned with the sudden collapse of the Earth's Magnetic Field, not the Sun's activity, in what is known as  a geomagnetic excursion. That one, 40,000 years ago, was the most recent – the Laschamp Excursion.  God knows what that does to the climate, and the earth in general - the geologists don't seem to.

It's been suggested that they can herald the beginning of an ice age period and the end of an interglacial???

"Don't let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right."
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."
"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn`t learn something from him."
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #179 on: September 8, 2012, 07:04:19 pm »
Finally managed to back to this.

This is desperation stuff Bio - to keep your head in the sand.

If I put a saucepan of water on the stove and turn the gas on (half way) it won't warm the water unless I keep turning it up?? If I leave it on at the same level the heating effect mysteriously disappears?!

A trend is not necessary – a sufficient level of heating is!

Bio, the temperature will continue to rise until the input level of energy equilibrates with the heat sinks ability to dissipate it. Bog standard thermodynamics.

Time lags are also part and parcel of climate.

There are even everyday examples – temperature at 3 pm is higher than at noon even though the direct irradiance has been going down for three hours! . Temperatures are higher in August despite the fact that irradiance has been going down since June 21st.

Solar cycle 22 (ending in 1986)  was one of the most intense on record (part of the 20th century “grand maximum” that was the most active sun of the last 11 thousand years. By almost every measure it was more intense than solar cycle 21. Adding on a 'Time to Equilibrium' of 10+ years (the sainted Gavin's estimate) brings us nicely to the late nineties.

Cycle 23 was the first to herald the big downturn in the Sun's activity and global temperatures have been flat since.


If cycle 24 runs as predicted then cooling from 2015/2016 should start to kick in – and bring with it the death of the 'CO2 Global Warming Hysteria'.

Frankly there's a lot of confusion in your posts. Let's not forget that your claim was that

I explain past climate changes from a major forcing which is completely missing from the IPCC models - namely the variable Magnetic activity of the Sun leading to cloud forcing.

I'm still waiting for some evidence of this forcing. All you're showing with your graphs is that there's a correlation between solar activity and global temperatures - no one is denying this, and even the IPCC states that early twentieth century warming was caused mainly by an increase in solar activity. I've already shown that GCRs only have a minimal effect on cloud formation and can only at best explain a fraction of current warming, so what makes you think such a large effect has existed in the past?

As a matter of interest, how do you (and the IPCC) go about explaining temperatures going up and down like a yo-yo when there are no anthropic green house gases to provide a forcing? You'll notice that GCRs can provide an answer and that CO2 (shown on this graph) can't.

Past climate change can be explained by a variety of factors - solar variability, volcanic activity, atmospheric composition, position of land masses, Milankovitch cycles, etc. Generally, once change is initiated, feedbacks amplify this change and explain the extent of change. Without these, equilibrium would be reached sooner and temperature changes would be constrained. In your scenario, cloud forcing modulated by the sun's magnetic field has to explain a huge chunk of past change every single time. I doubt that there is a single scientific paper that shows this or even simply claims it.

That paper was concerned with the sudden collapse of the Earth's Magnetic Field, not the Sun's activity, in what is known as  a geomagnetic excursion. That one, 40,000 years ago, was the most recent – the Laschamp Excursion.  God knows what that does to the climate, and the earth in general - the geologists don't seem to.

It's been suggested that they can herald the beginning of an ice age period and the end of an interglacial???

This was in response to your claim that GCRs have a significant impact on global temperatures, so it doesn't matter why the levels of GCRs changed. The graph simply doesn't support the idea that changes in GCRs play a major role in climate change.

You're expecting people to reject the findings of climate science, which has quantified the effect of each factor on past and current climate change, because of some as-yet unknown mechanism which can somehow explain the extent of all climate change events by overcoming a very uncertain low sensitivity, without providing a shred of evidence, i.e. actual data analysis. I think this is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

Offline lfcderek

  • Palooka basher Go ed Del Boy lid. Your right to point out wear I am wrong. Deffo more derek than lfc.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,353
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #180 on: September 9, 2012, 10:21:00 am »
You're expecting people to reject the findings of climate science, which has quantified the effect of each factor on past and current climate change, because of some as-yet unknown mechanism which can somehow explain the extent of all climate change events by overcoming a very uncertain low sensitivity, without providing a shred of evidence, i.e. actual data analysis. I think this is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.[1]
Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. As Kruger and Dunning conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others"


From the Lfcderek free encyclopedia.

The Bioluminescence  effect is a cognitive bias in which seemingly well educated, but highly pretentious, individuals suffer from an actual superiority complex, mistakenly believing that other mere mortals cannot think for themselves and that they couldn't possibly be right when challenging such an august body as, for instance, the IPCC.

Often accompanied by a striking deference for authority (such as the IPCC) it is characterized by a complete refusal to believe the evidence of their own eyes and common sense.
 
It is usually, but not always, accompanied by such logical fallacies as refusing to accept the use of 'Black Box' theories whereby an unknown mechanism is isolated in a black box with only the known inputs and attributed outputs then used to model the whole system. Well known examples, such as the 20th century development of the atomic structure, failing to persuade them.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll return to more substantive subjects when time permits.  :)

"Don't let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right."
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."
"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn`t learn something from him."
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #181 on: September 9, 2012, 12:26:43 pm »
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.[1]
Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. As Kruger and Dunning conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others"


From the Lfcderek free encyclopedia.

The Bioluminescence  effect is a cognitive bias in which seemingly well educated, but highly pretentious, individuals suffer from an actual superiority complex, mistakenly believing that other mere mortals cannot think for themselves and that they couldn't possibly be right when challenging such an august body as, for instance, the IPCC.

Often accompanied by a striking deference for authority (such as the IPCC) it is characterized by a complete refusal to believe the evidence of their own eyes and common sense.
 
It is usually, but not always, accompanied by such logical fallacies as refusing to accept the use of 'Black Box' theories whereby an unknown mechanism is isolated in a black box with only the known inputs and attributed outputs then used to model the whole system. Well known examples, such as the 20th century development of the atomic structure, failing to persuade them.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll return to more substantive subjects when time permits.  :)



Once you have a testable hypothesis and some data analysis, you'll be getting somewhere. Ultimately scientific research is based on hypotheses that can be tested and which make predictions which can be verified. You can challenge the IPCC all you want, it doesn't mean the basis for your challenge is valid. I will be quite happy to change my position if new evidence warrants it, but you have not provided this evidence.

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #182 on: September 9, 2012, 12:49:41 pm »
By the way, this obsession with black boxes... Unless you know how the box works, all you can do is guess. Surely you don't expect everyone to reject climate science based on guesswork?

Offline noggin the ngog

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
  • It's a hardknock life!
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #183 on: September 10, 2012, 02:58:50 pm »
Once you have a testable hypothesis and some data analysis, you'll be getting somewhere. Ultimately scientific research is based on hypotheses that can be tested and which make predictions which can be verified. You can challenge the IPCC all you want, it doesn't mean the basis for your challenge is valid. I will be quite happy to change my position if new evidence warrants it, but you have not provided this evidence.

Wow, quite a heated discussion.

I agree about having a testable hypothesis and data analysis in order to get somewhere. Two such cases relating to global warming are below but are completely ignored by the mainstream climate lobby.

http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
http://notrickszone.com/2012/08/07/epic-warmist-fail-modtran-doubling-co2-will-do-nothing-to-increase-long-wave-radiation-from-sky/

The second site asks a very important question about the "CO2global warming black box" which never seems to be addressed.








In the lands of the North, where the Black Rocks stand guard against the cold sea, in the dark night that is very long the Men of the Northlands sit by their great log fires and they tell a tale...
And those tales they tell are the stories of a kind and wise king and his people......
And then the king was sacked.......

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #184 on: September 10, 2012, 03:28:48 pm »
Wow, quite a heated discussion.

I agree about having a testable hypothesis and data analysis in order to get somewhere. Two such cases relating to global warming are below but are completely ignored by the mainstream climate lobby.

http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
http://notrickszone.com/2012/08/07/epic-warmist-fail-modtran-doubling-co2-will-do-nothing-to-increase-long-wave-radiation-from-sky/

The second site asks a very important question about the "CO2global warming black box" which never seems to be addressed.


Do you think the climate lobby should check every single blog to debunk every piece of misinformation that is published online? Or do you think these blog authors should publish their results in the peer-reviewed literature so that experts can determine whether there is any validity in their claims?

Just out of interest, what do you think determines the levels of water vapour in the atmosphere? Is water vapour a forcing or a feedback?
« Last Edit: September 10, 2012, 05:05:32 pm by Bioluminescence »

Offline noggin the ngog

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
  • It's a hardknock life!
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #185 on: September 11, 2012, 02:34:57 pm »
Bio,

I think that any objective person should review and evaluate all data relating to the testable hypothesis they are investigating. To do otherwise in not scientific and introduces bias.

Just because something is not published in an "establishment" climate change journal does not mean it is misinformation.  Having worked in scientific research for over 30 years I know only too well how difficult it is to get contradictory theories published in the peer reviewed literature. Unfortunately many of the "expert peers" have achieved their "expert" status by propounding a particular theory and have a vested interest in not allowing it to be challenged. These expert peers also review funding applications and are often disinclined to approve funding for ideas which are not in keeping with their own dogma. Science should always question the accepted establishment and constantly ask for proof but this is becoming increasingly impossible in our present system (so much for academic freedom and tenure). As lfcderek is trying to say, just because the IPCC say so does not mean they are correct.

Part of the issue here is that the climate debate has become a matter of belief and to question it is seen by some as a heresy. Also there are so many vested interests and experts involved now it is not surprising that objective impartial evaluations are few and far between.

Is water vapour a forcing or a feedback? .... The "correct" (dogmatic) answer of course is feedback. However, water vapour is already by far the most prevalent component of the greenhouse effect on earth and to dismiss it as having a short half life is misleading. It accounts for up to 98% of current warming. This is a logarithmic effect and we are already at the upper end of the curve. It is going to take a relatively large increase in overall GHG concentrations to produce a small additional increase in warming. This is why the CO2 data from the modtran site shows no effect on temperature increase except at 0% humidity. It is observations like this, the Venus greenhouse data, lfcdereks comments on inconsistencies in the AGW case and numerous other questions that are making an increasing number of people sceptical. 

Did you know the value of the Carbon Trading Market was $176 billion in 2011?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/30/us-world-bank-carbon-idUSBRE84T08720120530

Somebody is making a lot of money out of the situation and it is the general population who are paying both in cash and reduced living standards.





.   
In the lands of the North, where the Black Rocks stand guard against the cold sea, in the dark night that is very long the Men of the Northlands sit by their great log fires and they tell a tale...
And those tales they tell are the stories of a kind and wise king and his people......
And then the king was sacked.......

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #186 on: September 11, 2012, 03:30:33 pm »
Bio,

I think that any objective person should review and evaluate all data relating to the testable hypothesis they are investigating. To do otherwise in not scientific and introduces bias.

Just because something is not published in an "establishment" climate change journal does not mean it is misinformation.  Having worked in scientific research for over 30 years I know only too well how difficult it is to get contradictory theories published in the peer reviewed literature. Unfortunately many of the "expert peers" have achieved their "expert" status by propounding a particular theory and have a vested interest in not allowing it to be challenged. These expert peers also review funding applications and are often disinclined to approve funding for ideas which are not in keeping with their own dogma. Science should always question the accepted establishment and constantly ask for proof but this is becoming increasingly impossible in our present system (so much for academic freedom and tenure). As lfcderek is trying to say, just because the IPCC say so does not mean they are correct.

Part of the issue here is that the climate debate has become a matter of belief and to question it is seen by some as a heresy. Also there are so many vested interests and experts involved now it is not surprising that objective impartial evaluations are few and far between.

Is water vapour a forcing or a feedback? .... The "correct" (dogmatic) answer of course is feedback. However, water vapour is already by far the most prevalent component of the greenhouse effect on earth and to dismiss it as having a short half life is misleading. It accounts for up to 98% of current warming. This is a logarithmic effect and we are already at the upper end of the curve. It is going to take a relatively large increase in overall GHG concentrations to produce a small additional increase in warming. This is why the CO2 data from the modtran site shows no effect on temperature increase except at 0% humidity. It is observations like this, the Venus greenhouse data, lfcdereks comments on inconsistencies in the AGW case and numerous other questions that are making an increasing number of people sceptical. 

Did you know the value of the Carbon Trading Market was $176 billion in 2011?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/30/us-world-bank-carbon-idUSBRE84T08720120530

Somebody is making a lot of money out of the situation and it is the general population who are paying both in cash and reduced living standards.


First of all, that people are making money should be irrelevant when you're evaluating scientific evidence. Equally, you could argue that there are a lot of people making a lot of money out of the fossil fuel industry, and causing much pollution in the process. This really doesn't matter at the end of the day - the science is clear.

Water vapour does not cause 98% of warming - that figure was circulated ages ago on blogs but no one has been able to find a source for it. The fundamental problem with water vapour is that it varies in relation to temperature - a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapour, which in turns leads to further warming as water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas. It should also be pointed out that we're interested in absolutely humidity, not relative humidity. Saying that emitting CO2 is not a problem is just plain wrong. The CO2 effect is nowhere near saturated and the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere clearly shows that CO2 is still intercepting infrared radiation that would otherwise escape into space. And as a result, water vapour levels are rising and amplifying CO2-initiated warming. This is being directly observed, so I question the validity of the claim made on the second blog you link to.

I don't agree that Derek has shown any inconsistencies to be honest. But he at least accepts that increasing CO2 levels has an effect on temperatures. It'd also point out that the IPCC doesn't carry its own research - it only reviews what's out there. So it's not saying anything that the scientists aren't. Suggesting that peers are stopping others from publishing is nonsensical as scientists don't know in advance what the results are going to be. I'd also like to see one piece of evidence that shows it is actually happening. I'd also be interested to know why you feel the need to include comments such as

Quote
the "correct" (dogmatic) answer of course is feedback

Do you have any evidence that the claim is incorrect? If not, why would you imply it is dogmatic?

If I'm honest I find it a bit sad to see people make allegations of dishonesty and smear climate scientists without ever providing any evidence. I can only assume it's because the scientific case against man-made climate change is so weak, and therefore people are only left with trying to discredit the work carried out by climate scientists and the scientists themselves. And I find the insinuation that people are stopping others from publishing sails close to a conspiracy theory, which in addition doesn't explain why sceptical papers do actually get published.

I really struggle to understand this mindset. That's all I can say.

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #187 on: November 9, 2012, 04:00:21 pm »
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/warmer-still-extreme-climate-predictions-appear-most-accurate-study-says/2012/11/08/ebd075c6-29c7-11e2-96b6-8e6a7524553f_story.html

Warmer still: Extreme climate predictions appear most accurate, report says

Climate scientists agree the Earth will be hotter by the end of the century, but their simulations don’t agree on how much. Now a study suggests the gloomier predictions may be closer to the mark.

“Warming is likely to be on the high side of the projections,” said John Fasullo of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., a co-author of the report, which was based on satellite measurements of the atmosphere.

That means the world could be in for a devastating increase of about eight degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, resulting in drastically higher seas, disappearing coastlines and more severe droughts, floods and other destructive weather.

Such an increase would substantially overshoot what the world’s leaders have identified as the threshold for triggering catastrophic consequences. In 2009, heads of state agreed to try to limit warming to 3.6 degrees, and many countries want a tighter limit.

Climate scientists around the world use supercomputers to simulate the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans. Sophisticated programs attempt to predict how climate will change as society continues burning coal, oil and gas, the main sources of heat-trapping gases such as carbon dioxide.

But these simulations spit out a wide range of warming estimates. All foresee an overheated planet in 2100, but some predict just three degrees of warming while others estimate eight or more degrees of extra heat.

“This problem has been around for 30 years,” Fasullo said. “As long as climate models have existed, there’s been this spread in projections of the future.”

One source of uncertainty involves the impact of cloud cover, especially clouds that form in the tropical and subtropical regions between about 30 degrees north and south of the equator.

“Tropical clouds are so important to climate,” Fasullo said. “Small changes in clouds near the equator have a big effect on where you end up” for temperature predictions.

As sunlight pours onto the tropics, clouds bounce some of that heat back into space. Fewer clouds open up the atmosphere “like an iris,” Fasullo said, allowing more heat to beam onto Earth’s surface.

No supercomputer is powerful enough to predict cloud cover decades into the future, so Fasullo and colleague Kevin Trenberth struck on another method to test which of the many climate simulations most accurately predicted clouds: They looked at relative humidity. When humidity rises, clouds form; drier air produces fewer clouds. That makes humidity a good proxy for cloud cover.

Looking back at 10 years of atmospheric humidity data from NASA satellites, the pair examined two dozen of the world’s most sophisticated climate simulations. They found the simulations that most closely matched humidity measurements were also the ones that predicted the most extreme global warming.

In other words, by using real data, the scientists picked simulation winners and losers.

“The models at the higher end of temperature predictions uniformly did a better job,” Fasullo said. The simulations that fared worse — the ones predicting smaller temperature rises — “should be outright discounted,” he said.

The most accurate climate simulations were run by the United Kingdom’s Met Office, a consortium in Japan and a facility at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

“The biggest benefit of this study is really just a reminder to go back” and see how well climate models match reality, said Jimmy Booth, a post-doctoral fellow at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, who was not involved in the study. Booth works on a climate model called E2, and he said his team can now reexamine how well it simulates humidity in the tropics.

The study is part of a quickening trend to improve climate simulations. Over the past decade, these computer programs have become “tremendously more sophisticated,” said Stephen Lord of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. International groups collaborate on simulations even as available computing power soars.

The first climate models, about 30 years old, simulated only the Earth’s atmosphere. The latest generation add the effects of ocean currents, the dwindling planetary ice cover, and even how plants and animals take up and release carbon.

“As you make those improvements,” Lord said, “the ability to simulate long-term climate gets better.”

Scientists not involved in the research said the report, funded by NASA and scheduled for publication Friday in the journal Science, could improve the predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its next comprehensive report, due in 2013. The panel is a world body organized by the United Nations to guide policymakers as they struggle to curb and adapt to climate change. The world has warmed by about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880, a rise scientists nearly uniformly attribute to carbon pollution from fossil fuels.

Offline lfcderek

  • Palooka basher Go ed Del Boy lid. Your right to point out wear I am wrong. Deffo more derek than lfc.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,353
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #188 on: November 9, 2012, 09:31:37 pm »
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/warmer-still-extreme-climate-predictions-appear-most-accurate-study-says/2012/11/08/ebd075c6-29c7-11e2-96b6-8e6a7524553f_story.html


 :lmao

You do know that this is by Trenberth?


Computer models that more accurately depict dry
conditions in a key part of the subtropical atmosphere are
also more likely to predict greater climate warming from
increased greenhouse gases. In this graphic, each star
indicates one of 16 leading global climate models. The left
axis (“warming”) corresponds to equilibrium climate sensitivity
(ECS) in degrees C, which is the amount of warming produced
by each model when carbon dioxide concentrations in the
atmosphere are doubled over preindustrial values. The bottom
axis shows May-to-August relative humidity for a portion of the
upper atmosphere between about 20,000 to 30,000 feet in height
and between about 10° and 25° latitude south in the southern
subtropics. (©UCAR. Image by Carlye Calvin,
 based on Fasullo and Trenberth, Science, 2012.)


Therefore  less water vapour --->  higher temps.

So, have I got this straight? 3 of the 16 models are good fit for Low Humidity and these show the highest climate sensitivities.

That means 13 are crap and should be ignored?

So that means that 81% of the models that the IPCC use are crap and should be ignored?

(These are the 16 models that haven't predicted the flat lining of temps in the last 15 years)

If that's right then I'm still confused.

A doubling of CO2 gives a (direct) forcing of ~ 1 deg C right?
The average that the IPCC claim is ~ 3.5 deg C right?
1 deg C -----> 3.5 deg C because of positive feedbacks.
Positive feedbacks come from increase temps ---> increase water vapour.
Water vapour is the prime Green House Gas.

Therefore  more water vapour --->  higher temps.


Oh!!! wait a minute.



"Don't let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right."
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."
"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn`t learn something from him."
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #189 on: November 9, 2012, 10:51:15 pm »
:lmao

You do know that this is by Trenberth?


Computer models that more accurately depict dry
conditions in a key part of the subtropical atmosphere are
also more likely to predict greater climate warming from
increased greenhouse gases. In this graphic, each star
indicates one of 16 leading global climate models. The left
axis (“warming”) corresponds to equilibrium climate sensitivity
(ECS) in degrees C, which is the amount of warming produced
by each model when carbon dioxide concentrations in the
atmosphere are doubled over preindustrial values. The bottom
axis shows May-to-August relative humidity for a portion of the
upper atmosphere between about 20,000 to 30,000 feet in height
and between about 10° and 25° latitude south in the southern
subtropics. (©UCAR. Image by Carlye Calvin,
 based on Fasullo and Trenberth, Science, 2012.)


Therefore  less water vapour --->  higher temps.

So, have I got this straight? 3 of the 16 models are good fit for Low Humidity and these show the highest climate sensitivities.

That means 13 are crap and should be ignored?

So that means that 81% of the models that the IPCC use are crap and should be ignored?

(These are the 16 models that haven't predicted the flat lining of temps in the last 15 years)

If that's right then I'm still confused.

A doubling of CO2 gives a (direct) forcing of ~ 1 deg C right?
The average that the IPCC claim is ~ 3.5 deg C right?
1 deg C -----> 3.5 deg C because of positive feedbacks.
Positive feedbacks come from increase temps ---> increase water vapour.
Water vapour is the prime Green House Gas.

Therefore  more water vapour --->  higher temps.


Oh!!! wait a minute.





No, you haven't got this straight. The paper looked at how well models replicated relative humidity in the dry subtropics. Those that performed well also yielded the greatest rises in global temperatures. In other words, those models with the greatest equilibrium climate sensitivity were able to replicate the dryness of the subtropics, whereas the models with low climate sensitivity overestimated the relative humidity of the subtropics.

As for models not predicting the 'flatlining of temperatures in the past 15 years, that'a strawman, as you well know. First of all, models don't predict, they project, based on a number of scenarios. Secondly, some aspects, such as ENSO, are difficult to model as they are quite unpredictable. Models runs only give us averages, with some periods showing greater-than-observed warming and others showing smaller-than-observed warming or even cooling. The claim that models can make precise predictions of conditions at a precise time is never made by climate modellers.

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #190 on: November 9, 2012, 11:32:11 pm »

I see we are back to watching Biolu dismantle and invalidate all of your arguments, deggsie.

Good try though!

 ;D

Offline lfcderek

  • Palooka basher Go ed Del Boy lid. Your right to point out wear I am wrong. Deffo more derek than lfc.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,353
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #191 on: November 10, 2012, 05:26:24 pm »
I see we are back to watching Biolu dismantle and invalidate all of your arguments, deggsie.

Good try though!

 :lmao

You are a card at times RJ.


No, you haven't got this straight. The paper looked at how well models replicated relative humidity in the dry subtropics. Those that performed well also yielded the greatest rises in global temperatures.

That's right. 3 out 16 managed to predict what the relative humidity would be a spatially limited part of the atmosphere. The other 13 didn't.

Really imbues you with confidence in the climate models!

As for models not predicting the 'flatlining of temperatures in the past 15 years, that'a strawman, as you well know. First of all, models don't predict, they project, based on a number of scenarios.

Ah!!!

They don't predict they project. There's me thinking that all those 10's of billions that have been spent on computer models would give the politicians some predictions – sorry projections - on which to base policy. Undoubtedly an incisive, nee scalpel like, demolition of my arguments.

And yet

Just to introduce some empirical evidence (I know that may be a difficult concept for you and Bio)

CO2 level in 1997   =   363
CO2 level in 2012   =   394

According to the IPCC

Temp rise = Ln (394/363) * Climate sensitivity (3.5 deg C)          =  0.29 deg C
If we use the 3 models being defended (4.5 deg C) then we get     =  0.39 deg C
 
Observed temp rise =  0.00 deg C

15 years of flatlined temps RJ. Not looking good.
"Don't let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right."
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."
"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn`t learn something from him."
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #192 on: November 10, 2012, 05:57:16 pm »

That's right. 3 out 16 managed to predict what the relative humidity would be a spatially limited part of the atmosphere. The other 13 didn't.

Really imbues you with confidence in the climate models!

Ah!!!

They don't predict they project. There's me thinking that all those 10's of billions that have been spent on computer models would give the politicians some predictions – sorry projections - on which to base policy. Undoubtedly an incisive, nee scalpel like, demolition of my arguments.

And yet

Just to introduce some empirical evidence (I know that may be a difficult concept for you and Bio)

CO2 level in 1997   =   363
CO2 level in 2012   =   394

According to the IPCC

Temp rise = Ln (394/363) * Climate sensitivity (3.5 deg C)          =  0.29 deg C
If we use the 3 models being defended (4.5 deg C) then we get     =  0.39 deg C
 
Observed temp rise =  0.00 deg C

15 years of flatlined temps RJ. Not looking good.


The models are dealing with equilibrium climate sensitivity, which takes centuries to reach. We are nowhere near equilibrium climate sensitivity, so your comparison is pointless because you are comparing apples with oranges.

The trends over the past 15 years (since 1997) are:

0.092 +/- 0.140ºC per decade for GISTEMP
0.049 +/- 0.132ºC per decade for NOAA
0.058 +/- 0.136ºC per decade for HADCRUT4
0.006 +/- 0.249ºC per decade for RSS
0.106 +/- 0.252ºC per decade for UAH

(How's that for empirical evidence for you?) So it's not really 0.00ºC in the past 15 years, is it? But your whole point of course once again shows that you are deliberately ignoring the fact that no scientist claims models give you exact precision at any point - they wouldn't because they know you can't model short-term climate variability, that there are still uncertainties and computing power is not sufficient. All you are doing with your strawmen is showing that you don't really understand what you're talking about but are just desperate to discredit the whole body of climate science, including the pesky empirical evidence you don't like, in favour of your untestable hypothesis.

Which means that on one hand we have a huge body of converging evidence based on basic physics, which can explain not only warming but also a plethora of other observations (pattern of ocean warming, stratospheric cooling, the Earth's energy imbalance, etc.), while on the other we have your untestable hypothesis with an unknown mechanism that can, of course, explain nothing.


Offline lfcderek

  • Palooka basher Go ed Del Boy lid. Your right to point out wear I am wrong. Deffo more derek than lfc.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,353
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #193 on: November 10, 2012, 06:46:30 pm »

The trends over the past 15 years (since 1997) are:

0.092 +/- 0.140ºC per decade for GISTEMP
0.049 +/- 0.132ºC per decade for NOAA
0.058 +/- 0.136ºC per decade for HADCRUT4
0.006 +/- 0.249ºC per decade for RSS
0.106 +/- 0.252ºC per decade for UAH



Don't know where you're getting this lot from Bio but here's the raw data

#Data processed by www.woodfortrees.org
#Please check original source for first-hand data and information:
#
#----------------------------------------------------
#Data from UAH National Space Science and Technology Center
#http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/
#----------------------------------------------------
#
#File: tltglhmam_5.4
#
#Time series (uah) from 1978.92 to 2012.67
#Selected data from 1997
#Averaged with 12-sample running mean
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.00663057 per year
1997.5  0.106051
2012.17 0.203299
#Data ends
#Number of samples: 2
#Mean: 0.154675
e
#Data processed by www.woodfortrees.org
#Please check original source for first-hand data and information:
#
#----------------------------------------------------
#Data from Remote Sensing Systems
#http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
#----------------------------------------------------
#
#File: RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt
#
#Time series (rss) from 1979 to 2012.83
#Selected data from 1997
#Offset by -0.1
#Averaged with 12-sample running mean
#Least squares trend line; slope = -0.00308987 per year
1997.5  0.170172
2012.33 0.124339
#Data ends
#Number of samples: 2
#Mean: 0.147256
e
#Data processed by www.woodfortrees.org
#Please check original source for first-hand data and information:
#
#----------------------------------------------------
#Data from Hadley Centre / UEA CRU
#http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
#For terms and conditions of use, please see
#http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/terms_and_conditions.html
#----------------------------------------------------
#
#File: hadcrut3vgl.txt
#
#Time series (hadcrut3) from 1850 to 2012.75
#Selected data from 1997
#Offset by -0.26
#Averaged with 12-sample running mean
#Least squares trend line; slope = -0.000677828 per year
1997.5  0.155031
2012.25 0.145033
#Data ends
#Number of samples: 2
#Mean: 0.150032
e
#Data processed by www.woodfortrees.org
#Please check original source for first-hand data and information:
#
#----------------------------------------------------
#Data from NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
#http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
#----------------------------------------------------
#
#File: GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
#
#Time series (gistemp) from 1880 to 2012.92
#Selected data from 1997
#Offset by -0.35
#Averaged with 12-sample running mean
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.00769127 per year
1997.5  0.117477
2012.42 0.232205
#Data ends
#Number of samples: 2
#Mean: 0.174841


#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.00663057 per year
#Least squares trend line; slope = -0.00308987 per year
#Least squares trend line; slope = -0.000677828 per year
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.00769127 per year


Average = 0.02638536  deg C per decade

i.e. 26 1000'th of a degree per decade - I exaggerated slightly

At this rate the temperature will rise by 0.26 deg C by the end of the century.

Scorchio !!!!

According to the IPCC

Temp rise = Ln (394/363) * Climate sensitivity (3.5 deg C)          = 0.29 deg C

Observed temp rise =  0.039 deg C

15 years of (in the real world) flatlined temps Bio. Not looking good.


"Don't let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right."
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."
"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn`t learn something from him."
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #194 on: November 10, 2012, 07:10:42 pm »
Not really, Derek. Because taking a short period of time where natural variability is likely to dominate doesn't really tell us much about the long-term trend. What we've had is a decade that has included very low solar activity, global dimming and a series of La Ninas, including one of the strongest on record, all of which have a cooling effect on global temperature. Despite this, the past decade was still the warmest on record. And in addition your argument always somehow focuses on the atmosphere and ignores the oceans, where about 90% of warming goes. There is clear evidence that the oceans (from 0 to 2000 m) have been accumulating heat in the past 15 years, consistent with the observed energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere and the increase in downward longwave radiation.

You are cherry picking short periods of time and the atmosphere to make a point that no one else is making, i.e. you are building a strawman and you are ignoring inconvenient data.

Offline lfcderek

  • Palooka basher Go ed Del Boy lid. Your right to point out wear I am wrong. Deffo more derek than lfc.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,353
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #195 on: November 10, 2012, 07:41:12 pm »
Not really, Derek. Because taking a short period of time where natural variability is likely to dominate doesn't really tell us much about the long-term trend.

A couple of quotes re the flatlining


Judith Curry:

"JC note to defenders of the idea that the planet has been warming for the past 16 years:

Raise the level of your game. Nothing in the Met Office's statement or in Nuticelli's argument effectively refutes Rose's argument that there has been no increase in the global average surface temperature for the past 16 years.

Use this as an opportunity to communicate honestly with the public about what we know and what we don't know about climate change. Take a lesson from these other scientists that acknowledge the 'pause', mentioned in my previous post"



Kevin Trenberth:

"The hiatus [in warming] was not unexpected. Variability in the climate can suppress rising temperatures temporarily, though before this decade scientists were uncertain how long such pauses could last. In any case, one decade is not long enough to say anything about human effects on climate; as one forthcoming paper lays out, 17 years is required"



Even Trenberth is saying that a pause of 17 years will seriously undermine the basis of Anthropic Global Warming.

JC did go on to query when exactly Trenberth said that a hiatus was expected - no record can be found of such an expectation before it happened!

So, once again

According to the IPCC

Temp rise = Ln (394/363) * Climate sensitivity (3.5 deg C)          = 0.29 deg C

Observed temp rise =  0.039 deg C

15 years of (in the real world) flatlined temps Bio. Not looking good.

And only 2 more years to the Trenberth catastrophe!


 





"Don't let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right."
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."
"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn`t learn something from him."
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #196 on: November 10, 2012, 08:13:09 pm »
Judith Curry is just plain wrong. 17 years is too short a period, too. From the Met Office statement to clarify Rose's errors:

Quote
The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.

As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.

Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.

So periods where temperatures hardly rose or even fell over several years are not unusual. Carefully choosing your start and end points on relatively short timescales tells you nothing about long-term trends. And you need at least two decades of data to detect a trend.

The question you should be asking is why, despite a preponderance of La Niñas, low solar activity and global dimming, has this decade been the warmest on record? These factors should've led to a noticeable cooling so why hasn't this happened? Foster and Rahmstorf have already answered this question.

Nothing we've seen in recent years is unprecedented. Natural variability has dampened the rate of warming in the past decade, whereas it amplified it in the 1990s. It just happens and doesn't change the long-term trend as the trend smoothes out the natural variability.

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #197 on: November 10, 2012, 09:07:50 pm »
Don't know where you're getting this lot from Bio but here's the raw data

#Data processed by www.woodfortrees.org
#Please check original source for first-hand data and information:
#
#----------------------------------------------------
#Data from UAH National Space Science and Technology Center
#http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/
#----------------------------------------------------
#
#File: tltglhmam_5.4
#
#Time series (uah) from 1978.92 to 2012.67
#Selected data from 1997
#Averaged with 12-sample running mean
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.00663057 per year
1997.5  0.106051
2012.17 0.203299
#Data ends
#Number of samples: 2
#Mean: 0.154675
e
#Data processed by www.woodfortrees.org
#Please check original source for first-hand data and information:
#
#----------------------------------------------------
#Data from Remote Sensing Systems
#http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
#----------------------------------------------------
#
#File: RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt
#
#Time series (rss) from 1979 to 2012.83
#Selected data from 1997
#Offset by -0.1
#Averaged with 12-sample running mean
#Least squares trend line; slope = -0.00308987 per year
1997.5  0.170172
2012.33 0.124339
#Data ends
#Number of samples: 2
#Mean: 0.147256
e
#Data processed by www.woodfortrees.org
#Please check original source for first-hand data and information:
#
#----------------------------------------------------
#Data from Hadley Centre / UEA CRU
#http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
#For terms and conditions of use, please see
#http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/terms_and_conditions.html
#----------------------------------------------------
#
#File: hadcrut3vgl.txt
#
#Time series (hadcrut3) from 1850 to 2012.75
#Selected data from 1997
#Offset by -0.26
#Averaged with 12-sample running mean
#Least squares trend line; slope = -0.000677828 per year
1997.5  0.155031
2012.25 0.145033
#Data ends
#Number of samples: 2
#Mean: 0.150032
e
#Data processed by www.woodfortrees.org
#Please check original source for first-hand data and information:
#
#----------------------------------------------------
#Data from NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
#http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
#----------------------------------------------------
#
#File: GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
#
#Time series (gistemp) from 1880 to 2012.92
#Selected data from 1997
#Offset by -0.35
#Averaged with 12-sample running mean
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.00769127 per year
1997.5  0.117477
2012.42 0.232205
#Data ends
#Number of samples: 2
#Mean: 0.174841


#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.00663057 per year
#Least squares trend line; slope = -0.00308987 per year
#Least squares trend line; slope = -0.000677828 per year
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.00769127 per year


Average = 0.02638536  deg C per decade


Just had a close look at your code. You've not provided the temperature trends over the period - you've provided the slope between your two end points of the time range. Your analysis is completely invalid.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2012, 09:19:55 pm by Bioluminescence »

Offline lfcderek

  • Palooka basher Go ed Del Boy lid. Your right to point out wear I am wrong. Deffo more derek than lfc.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,353
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #198 on: November 10, 2012, 09:24:40 pm »
Judith Curry is just plain wrong. 17 years is too short a period, too.


The 17 year quote is from the 'Sainted Trenberth' - one of the high priests of Anthropic Global Warming.

Here's another of his quotes

"Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming?…The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”     —Dr. Kevin Trenberth, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climate gate e-mail, Oct. 12, 2009

Quote

So periods where temperatures hardly rose or even fell over several years are not unusual. Carefully choosing your start and end points on relatively short timescales tells you nothing about long-term trends. And you need at least two decades of data to detect a trend.

The end point is now and the start point was when the warming ended!

Trenberth has it 17 years but he's wrong and 20 is the right figure? No doubt if we get to 17 then Trenberth will suddenly decide it should be 25! If we get to 20 will you decide on 30?

  :lmao

"Don't let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right."
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."
"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn`t learn something from him."
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #199 on: November 10, 2012, 09:31:42 pm »
You need to be a bit more critical of the sources you use. This Trenberth quote was about being unable to measure where the warming went, not the fact that there was no warming.

Can you provide the quote you attribute to Trenberth about the 17 years? My 'at least two decades' comes from the Met Office article I quoted, where they say "[climate] change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales" because of variability.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2012, 09:33:17 pm by Bioluminescence »